Santolina orocarpetana sp. nov. (Asteraceae: Anthemideae), a new species from the Iberian Peninsula. Revision of the lectotype of S. oblongifolia Boiss. Author Rivero-Guerra, Aixa O. Universidad de Sevilla, Facultad de Biología, Departamento de Biología Vegetal y Ecología, avda. Reina Mercedes, E- 41012 Sevilla (Spain) & Centro de Investigação en Biodiversidade e Recursos Genéticos, Campus Agrario de Vairão, rua Padre Armando Quintas-Crasto, 4485 - 661 Vairão (Portugal) rivero-guerra@hotmail.com text Adansonia 2012 3 2012-06-30 34 1 133 154 http://dx.doi.org/10.5252/a2012n1a16 journal article 10.5252/a2012n1a16 6bc8f93f-8227-4361-9bef-0976c7102fe7 1639-4798 5205801 4. Santolina oblongifolia Boiss. var. β ceratophylla Willk. In Willkomm & Lange , Prodromus Florae Hispanicae 2: 82 (1865) . — Type (as given in protologue): “In rupestribus regionis montanae Hispanicae centralis, hucusque non nisi in Sierra de Gredos reperta (ad Serranillos, Isern, Cut.!. Puerto del Pico, Bourg.!) ubi utraque forma promiscue crescere videtur. – Julio (v.s.)”. — Lectotype (here designated): Spain , Rochers de la Sierra de Gredos au Puerto del Pico , 8-25.VII.1863 , Bourgeau 2540 ( COI-WILLK 00035989 [ Fig. 3 ] ; isolecto-, A 00251664 (specimen to the left), HEID 702282 (specimen to the left), MPU (2 sheets), W (2 sheets, one of them with two specimen; the isolectotype is the specimen to the left]). REMARKS These names were published by Willkomm in Willkomm & Lange (1865) as S. oblongifolia α obtusifolia and S. oblongifolia β ceratophylla . The author did not mentioned the rank of “ α ” and “ β ” in the introductory chapter of Prodromus Florae Hispanicae . However, Willkomm ( Willkomm & Lange 1865: 81 ) cited “ S. var. vulgaris S. rosmarinifoliae ”, indicating the rank of S. rosmarinifolia L. α vulgaris Boiss.; therefore the rank of “ α ” and “ β ” can clearly be established as variety. In addition, Lange in Willkomm & Lange (1880) , cited the varietal status of both names. The varieties “ obtusifolia ” and “ ceratophylla ” are from the same locus classicus : “ In rupestribus regionis montanae Hispanicae centralis, hucusque non nisi in Sierra de Gredos reperta (ad Serranillos, Isern, Cut.!. Puerto del Pico, Bourg.!) ubi utraque forma promiscue crescere videtur. – Julio (v.s.) ” (Willkomm in Willkomm & Lange 1865 ). Willkomm also mentioned “ Serranillos ” in the protologue of S . heterophylla . This indicates that Willkomm granted a varietal status to the intrapopulational variation. The specimens COI-WILLK 00035955 and COI-WILLK 00035989 of Willkomm’s herbarium are on the same sheet ( Fig. 3 ). This sheet has two labels in the lower left-hand margin with the following notation in black ink: Label 1 (Bourgeau’s handwritten notation): “E. Bourgeau – Pl. d’Espagne 1863 // 2540. Santolina oblongifolia Boiss. Diagn. / Pl. Or. Ser.2, fasc. 3, p. 18 (Planta herbaria Paroniani, cujus patria nodium involucrate) // (J. Gay) // Rochers de la Sierra de Gredos au Puerto del Pico // 8 et 25 juill”; Label 2 (Willkomm’s handwritten notation): “ Santolina oblongifolia Boiss. [underlined] // 1. var. α obtusifolia / 2. var. β ceratophylla ”. Voucher specimens from the locus classicus and with the number “ 2540 ” were found in A 00251664, G, HEID 702282, LY (2 sheets), MA 720935 , MPU (3 sheets), P (3 sheets) and W (3 sheets), but they do not include a revision label of Willkomm with the epithets “ obtusifolia ” and “ ceratophylla ”. FIG 3. — Lectotype of Santolina oblongifolia var. α obtusifolia Willk. (COI-WILLK 00035955) and lectotype of S. oblongifolia var. β ceratophylla Willk. (COI-WILLK 00035989). The collection to the left, COI-WILLK 00035955, comprises two samples from the same gathering, labelled with the name “ Santolina oblongifolia var. α obtusifolia ” ( lectotype here designated; Fig. 3 ). One of them (sample to the right) has three flowering stems and a small sterile stem, and the other (sample to the left) is a robust sample with four flowering stems and several vegetative stems. The lectotype has two revision labels by Sánchez-Mata and Sardinero with the following notation in black ink: Label 1 : “ Santolina oblongifolia Boiss. var. obtusifolia Willk. in Willk. & Lange // Lectotype [handwritten] // Coimbra [printed] 1993 IX [handwritten]”; Label 2 : “ Santolina oblongifolia Boiss. [handwritten] // Coimbra [printed] 1993 IX [handwritten]”. Both samples have spatulate leaves, but the flowering stems are strongly thickened above and the capitula are big ( Fig. 3 ). The literature does not show the publication of this lectotype by Sánchez-Mata & Sardinero. There is another specimen with the name “ Santolina oblongifolia var. α obtusifolia ” in W herbarium. The sheet (W 0026403; Fig. 4 ) has a different collection date (Sierra de Gredos, Leg. Bourgeau 3.VII.1863 , Cour. Willkomm), and the number “2540” is not shown. This specimen does not show intermediate characteristics between S. oblongifolia and S. rosmarinifolia subsp. rosmarinifolia . All the characteristics fit with those listed in the protologue (Appendix 1). Jordan & Fourreau (1869) published a new taxon ( S. sericea ) based on plants from the locus classicus of the varieties obtusifolia and ceratophylla . However, they did not cite it in the protologue. They also published a detailed diagnosis of S. sericea (Appendix 1). Furthermore, figure 321, table 240 ( Jordan & Fourreau 1869 ) shows a robust sample of S . sericea . Two sheets are preserved in the Jordan’s herbarium (LY) with the epithets “ sericea ”. The records indicate that the sample Jordan used to illustrate this name was split into two units and mounted on two sheets. They were labelled as “ 1 ère feuille ” ( Fig. 5 ) and “ 2 ème feuille ” ( Fig. 6 , specimen to the right). The sheet designated “ 1 ère feuille ” (Jordan’s handwritten notation in graphite in the lower left margin) has a sample, in the centre of the sheet, with three flowering stems, two fragments of flowering stems and three sterile stems. There is also a large, isolated sterile stem to the right of the sample ( Fig. 5 ) [this sample is the portion to the right-hand of the original specimen]. A label in the central lower margin indicates: “ Santolina sericea [underlined] // Jord. et Fourr. // Lectotypus [underlined] // D. Rivera // 18/10/1984 [ D. Rivera’s handwritten notation]”. This lectotype was not published by D. Rivera . The sheet designated “ 2 ème feuille ” (Jordan’s handwritten notation in the central lower margin in graphite) has two samples ( Fig. 6 ). The sample to the right is the portion to the left-hand-side of the original material. It has a decumbent branch with eight flowering stems. The sample to the left (representing a different gathering) has a small branch with three flowering stems. This sample shows clear intermediate characteristics (linear and narrowly spatulate leaves, peduncles strongly thickened above and umbilicate capitula) between S . oblongifolia and S . rosmarinifolia subsp. rosmarinifolia . The lectotype is the specimen from the sheet designated “1ère feuille” ( Fig. 5 [sample to the left]). It has three flowering stems and three other short vegetative stems. Furthermore, Nyman (1879) cited the present Bourgeau’s collection as S. oblongifolia . Willkomm in Willkomm & Lage (1865), in the protologue of the variety ceratophylla , cited S. heterophylla as a synonym of this name. There are two possibilities regarding S. oblongifolia var. β ceratophylla : – Option 1: Willkomm created a new name, at varietal rank for S. heterophylla (even if he did not use the same final epithet). This theory is supported by the following evidences: 1) Willkomm & Cutanda in Willkomm (1859) in the protologue of S. heteroplylla wrote “An varietas S. oblongifoliae?”, indicating that the authors had doubts about the species status of S. heterophylla ; 2) both names have the same locus classicus ; 3) the single specimen cited in the protologue of S. heterophylla (COI-WILLK 0035956) bears the both names; 4) Willkomm (1865) cited S. heterophylla as synonym of the variety “ ceratophylla ”. If this is the case, the two names ( S. heteroplylla and S. oblongifolia var. β ceratophylla ) have the same lectotype (COI-WILLK 0035956, here designated; see ICBN: art. 7.3 and 7.4; McNeill et al. 2006 ), therefore the both names are homotypic synonyms. FIG 4. — Specimen labelled by Willkomm as Santolina oblongifolia var. obtusifolia Willk. The sheet has a different collection date for the type material (Sierra de Gredos, Leg. Bourgeau 3.VII.1863, Cour. Willkomm), and the number “2540” is not shown. FIG 5. — Lectotype of Santolina sericea Jord. & Fourr. (LY, “1ère feuille”, specimen to the left). FIG 6. — Isolectotype of Santolina sericea Jord. & Fourr. (LY, “2ème feuille”, specimen to the right). – Option 2: Willkomm created a new taxon at varietal rank for S. heterophylla . This theory is supported by the following evidences: 1) the author published a more accurate diagnosis with elements of the diagnosis of S. heterophylla ; 2) he changed “ spathulato-linearibus ” ( S. heterophylla ) to “ cuneato-linearia ” ( S. oblongifolia var. β ceratophylla ); 3) the author included new elements in the diagnosis: “ folia superiora aut summa integerrima, omnia virentia ”; and 4) Willkomm studied more specimens and redefined the concept of S. heterophylla . If the option 2 is correct, the specimen to the right ( Fig. 3 ; COI-WILLK 00035989) is the lectotype (here designated) of S. oblongifolia var. β ceratophylla . The sample has two flowering stems and a sterile stem.This specimen has two revision labels by Sánchez-Mata & Sardinero with the following notation in black ink (the labels are placed under one of the specimens of the variety “ obtusifolia ”, probably a handling error): Label 1 : “ Santolina oblongifolia Boiss. var. ceratophylla Willk. in Willk. & Lange // Typus [handwritten] // Coimbra [printed] 1993 IX [handwritten]”; Label 2 : “ Santolina oblongifolia Boiss. [handwritten] // Coimbra [printed] 1993 IX [handwritten]”. However, the specimen COI-WILLK 00035956 ( Fig. 2 , see lectotypification of S. heterophylla ) was also selected by Sánchez-Mata & Sardinero as typus of Santolina oblongifolia var. ceratophylla . The specimens display characteristics consistent with those listed in the protologue (Appendix 1) and show characteristics intermediate between S . oblongifolia and S . rosmarinifolia subsp. rosmarinifolia . AORG considers that option 2 is the most appropriate.